"The second and third elements are jurisdictional, and the failure to establish those elements requires dismissal of the petition without considering the merits." Choi v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 882, 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
Where erroneous bifurcation of causes of action results in material injury that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal, the jurisdictional prong of certiorari review is met. See Choi v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 882, 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; see also Kavouras v. Mario City Rest. Corp., 88 So. 3d 213, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ("Certiorari is an appropriate remedy for orders severing or bifurcating claims which involve interrelated factual issues because severance risks inconsistent outcomes."); ACT Servs., Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty., 29 So. 3d 450, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ; Martinique Condos., Inc. v. Short, 230 So. 3d 1268, 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). "Rule 1.270(b) generally gives courts the discretion to sever claims ‘in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice.’ "
See Ludeca, Inc. v. Alignment & Condition Monitoring, Inc., 276 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ("Certiorari is an appropriate remedy for orders severing or bifurcating claims which involve interrelated factual issues because severance risks inconsistent outcomes." (quoting Kavouras v. Mario City Rest. Corp., 88 So. 3d 213, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) )); Choi v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 882, 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("[T]he trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by granting the motion to sever three inextricably interwoven claims. We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order granting Auto–Owners’ motion to sever."); Kavouras, 88 So. 3d 213 (granting petition for writ of certiorari and quashing order granting motion to sever).
A party seeking certiorari relief "must establish (1) a departure from the essential requirements of law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the trial (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal." Choi v. Auto–Owners Ins. Co., 224 So.3d 882, 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Rogan v. Oliver, 110 So.3d 980, 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ). Although Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270(b) provides courts with the discretion to sever claims "in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice," certiorari is an appropriate remedy for orders severing claims that involve interrelated factual issues because of the risk of inconsistent verdicts. Minty v. Meister Financialgroup, Inc., 97 So.3d 926, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Kavouras v. Mario City Rest. Corp., 88 So.3d 213, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ).
Failing to sever the claims here would, thus, not defeat the legislative purpose of the statute. See Choi v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 882, 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (finding Fla. Stat. section 627.4136(1) inapplicable where an insured sued both a tortfeasor (not an insured under the relevant policy) and the insured's insurer for the same damages). Accordingly, without more, Scottsdale has not presented, nor is the Court otherwise aware of, a "substantial reason" why the Bakery should be denied leave to amend.
Thus, "it is well-settled that it is a departure from the essential requirements of the law to sever claims that are inextricably interwoven." Choi v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 224 So. 3d 882, 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (citations omitted). Here, as previously explicated, petitioner seeks damages and injunctive relief arising out of the purported misappropriation of its trade secrets, a claim that emanates from the same customer database over which respondents seek to exercise dominion in the declaratory relief action.